An AVO Primer compressing and expanding the rocks in
By their direction of propagation. However,
Brian Russell1
Search and Discovery Article #40051
(2002)
*Adapted for online presentation from an article by
the same author in AAPG Explorer (June, 1999),
entitled “AVO Adds Flavor to Seismic Soup.”
Appreciation is expressed to the author and to M.
Ray Thomasson, former Chairman of the AAPG
Geophysical Integration Committee, and Larry
Nation, AAPG Communications Director, for their
support of this online version.
1
Hampson-Russell Software Services Ltd., Calgary,
Canada (www.hampson-russell.com;
brian@hampson-russell.com); past president of the
Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
General Statement
AVO, which stands for Amplitude
Variations with Offset--or, more simply,
Amplitude Versus Offset--is a seismic
technique that looks for direct hydrocarbon
indicators using the amplitudes of prestack
seismic data. The basics of the AVO method
will be explained here using the two
geological models shown in Figure 1:
• Figure 1a shows a brine-filled sand
pinchout encased in shale.
• Figure 1 b displays the same sand
saturated with gas.
Wells have been drilled into each sand.
P- and S Waves
To understand the AVO effects of these two
models, we must first discuss seismic waves
and the recording of seismic data.
Traditional seismic data are recorded using
compressional waves, or P-waves, which
move through the earth by alternately,
there is a second type of wave called a shear
wave, or S-wave, which travels by shearing
the rocks at right angles to its direction of
propagation. This is illustrated in Figure 2.
There are several important differences
between P- and S-waves:
• First, the velocity of the S-wave is
slower than the velocity of the P-
wave for a given geological
formation.
• Second, S-waves are less sensitive to
the presence of gas in a reservoir
than P-waves. since the high
compressibility of gas has more of an
effect on the Pwave velocity.
• A third important physical parameter
is the density that is strongly affected
by the presence of gas.
Figures 3 and 4 show the P-wave velocity,
S-wave velocity and density logs for the two
models of Figure 1. Notice that both the P-
wave velocity and the density are lower in
the gas sand than in the wet sand, but the S-
wave velocity is the same in both cases. To
understand how this is related to the
recorded seismic trace, note that the seismic
recording measures two things: the time that
it takes to travel down to a particular
geological interface, and the reflection
amplitude.
Figures 3 and 4 also show how the
amplitudes are created. First, we multiply
the velocity times the density to get the P or
S impedance. Then, we calculate the
difference between the impedances divided
by their sum, which gives us a reflection
coefficient (reflectivity) at each interface.
Finally, we superimpose the seismic
response, or wavelet, on the reflection
coefficients to get the synthetic seismic
traces shown at the far right of both figures.
The P and S synthetics for the wet model are
almost identical, but for the gas model the S-
wave synthetic is the reverse of the P-wave
synthetic and has lower amplitudes. The
high amplitude reflections seen on the P-
wave response of the gas model are called
"bright-spots," and can be effective in the
Gulf Coast and other areas in the search for
gas sands. Figure 5 shows such a bright-spot
reflection from a shallow Cretaceous play in
Alberta at 640 msec.
However, there are other geological
situations that create 'bright-spots," such as
coal seams or hard streaks. From this
discussion, it is obvious that the P-wave
response does not reveal the presence of gas
unambiguously, and it needs to be
supplemented with an S-wave recording.
Unfortunately, S-wave recording is not that
common. This leads us to the AVO method,
which allows us to derive a similar result
without actually recording an S-wave
section.
The AVO Method
Figure 6, which shows a typical prestack
seismic raypath, records that the incident
wave displays both compressional and shear
effects, since it strikes the interface at an
angle a. The reflected wave thus contains the
effects of both P- and S-waves. Although the
mathematics of this process has been known
since the nineteenth century, it was only
very recently that we have recognized it on
our seismic data. Ostrander (1984) showed
that, for the simple model of Figure 1b, the
amplitudes on a prestack gather would
increase with offset. This is shown in Figure
7, in which the reflections from the gathers
(seismic traces from one point displayed
side by side) over the shallow gas sand of
Figure 6 are seen quite clearly to increase.
Not all gas sands show increasing AVO
effects, since the result is dependent on the
nature of the acoustic impedance change.
The different types of AVO anomalies have
been classified as classes 1, 2 and 3 by
Rutherford and Williams (1989} In the
present paper we are looking at a Class 3
example, in which the impedance of the
sand is lower than the encasing shale.
If we measure the amplitude of each
reflection amplitude as a function of offset,
and plot them on a graph as a function of the
sine of angle of incidence squared, we
observe a straight line. For any line, the
intercept and gradient can be measured. By
linearizing the complicated mathematics
behind the AVO technique, Richards and
Frasier (1976) and Wiggins et al (1986)
gave us the following physical interpretation
of the intercept and gradient:
Intercept = the P-wave reflection
amplitude.
Gradient = the P-wave reflection
amplitude minus twice the S-wave
reflection amplitude.
To illustrate this point, the amplitudes from
a small portion of one of the gathers in
Figure 7 are shown in Figure 8, with a
straight line fit superimposed. Notice that
the top of the sand has a negative intercept
(a trough) and a negative gradient, and the
base of the sand has a positive intercept
(peak) and a positive gradient. When we
perform this analysis at every sample, on
every gather, we create two sections, or
volumes. The intercept section is similar to
the conventional stack--except that it
represents a better estimate of the vertical P-
wave reflections. The gradient contains
information about both the P and S-wave
reflections.
There are many ways of displaying this
information. As well as displaying the
intercept and gradient on their own, it is
common to display the difference and sum
of the intercept and gradient. From the
above explanation it is obvious that the
difference, after scaling, is the approximate
S-wave reflectivity. The sum of the intercept
and the gradient can be shown to represent
the approximate Poisson's ratio change,
where Poisson's ratio is related to the square
of the P-wave to S-wave velocity ratio. A
negative Poisson's ratio change is associated
with the top of a gas zone, whereas a
positive change is associated with the base.
These displays are shown in Figures 9 and
10 for our real example. Notice that the
intercept (P-wave) shows a strong "bright-
spot," whereas the pseudo-S-wave (intercept
minus gradient) does not show a "bright-
spot," indicating the presence of a gas sand.
As one final example, let us consider an
example of the AVO technique applied to 3-
D data. Figure 11 shows the sum of intercept
and gradient, or pseudo-Poisson's ratio
computed over the top of a channel sand in
Alberta. The negative values on this plot
indicate the possible presence of gas in the
channel sand.
Conclusion
This tutorial has reviewed the basic
principles behind the AVO technique. We
have concentrated on a single type of
anomaly, the Class 3, in which the acoustic
impedance of the gas sand drops with
respect to the encasing shales. For a
discussion of other types of anomalies refer
to the papers by Rutherford and Williams
(1989), Ross and Kinman (1995). and Verm
and Hilterman (1995).
The key thing to remember about the AVO
method is that the AVO gradient responds to
both P- and S-wave reflections from an
interface, and this behavior can be used to
locate gas charged reservoirs. Applied to 3-
D seismic data, the AVO technique gives us
a robust and inexpensive method for
identifying potential reservoirs and is a
technique that adds an extra dimension to
studies done only with stacked seismic data
References
Ostrander, W.J., 1984, Plane-wave reflection
coefficients for gas sands at nonnormal angles of
incidence: Geophysics, v. 49, p. 1637-1648.
Richards, P.G., and Frasier, C.W., 1976, Scattering of
eleastic waves from depth-dependent
inhomogeneities: Geophysics, v. 41, p. 441-458.
Ross, C.P., and Kinman, D.L., 1995, Nonbright-spot
AVO; two examples: Geophysics, v. 60, p. 1398-
1408.
Rutherford, S.R., and Williams, R.H., 1989,
Amplitude-versus-offset variations in gas sands:
Geophysics, v. 54, p. 680-688.
Verm, R., and Hilterman, F., 1995, Lithology, color-
coded siesmic sections; the calibration of AVO
crossplotting to rock properties: Leading Edge, v.
14, p. 847-853.
Wiggins, W., Ng, P., and Manzur, A., 1986, The
relation between the VSP-CDP transformation and
VSP migration (abstract): SEG Abstracts, v. 1, p.
565-568.
 Figures

Figure 1. Two geological models that will illustrate Figure 2. A simple drawing of P- and S-wave motion.
the basics of the AVO method.

Figure 3. The velocities, densities and synthetic seismograms

for model A.

Figure 4. The velocities, densities and synthetic seismograms

for model B.
Figure 5. A stacked section from Alberta showing a "bright-spot" at 640 msec
caused by a Cretaceous gas sand.

Figure 6. The geometry of a reflected P-wave at a given angle

a. The offset is the distance from the source to the receiver.

Figure 7. The CDP gathers from a portion of the stacked section in Figure 6,
over the "bright-spot". Notice the amplitude increase indicated at the zone
shown by an arrow.
 Figure 8. The intercept and gradient fit to the top and base
reflections from a gas sand.

Figure 9. The intercept (a) and gradient (b) for the example shown in Figures 6 and 7.

Figure 10. The sum (a) and difference (b) of the intercept and gradient shown in Figure 9.
Figure 11. A 3D AVO example from a Cretaceous channel
sand in Alberta. The plot shows the sum of intercept and
gradient, or pseudo-Poisson's ratio.